Guidelines

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.

Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.

Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.

Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.

Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.

Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.

If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.

Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.

Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder. 

“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.* 


The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.

*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a draft recommendation statement for screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents and adults, and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.

Wikimedia Commons/BruceBlaus

This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).

“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.

To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.

Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.

Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.

Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.

The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.

[email protected]

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a draft recommendation statement for screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents and adults, and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.

Wikimedia Commons/BruceBlaus

This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).

“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.

To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.

Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.

Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.

Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.

The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.

[email protected]

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a draft recommendation statement for screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in adolescents and adults, and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.

Wikimedia Commons/BruceBlaus

This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).

“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.

To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.

Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.

Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.

Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.

The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.

[email protected]

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.

luiscar/Thinkstock

Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).

The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.

“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.

These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.

Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.

The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.

AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.

In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”

Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Thinkstock

Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).

The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.

“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.

A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.

The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.

DOAC-related updates

VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.

Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).

Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.

Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
 

Additional updates

CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”

“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.

Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.

Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.

Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.

A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
 

Reaffirmed recommendations

Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.

The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
 

Perspective and future directions

In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.

The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).

“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.

Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.

“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.

Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.

“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.

Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.

“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”

An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.

“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.

For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.

Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.

Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.

[email protected]

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Thinkstock

Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).

The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.

“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.

A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.

The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.

DOAC-related updates

VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.

Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).

Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.

Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
 

Additional updates

CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”

“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.

Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.

Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.

Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.

A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
 

Reaffirmed recommendations

Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.

The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
 

Perspective and future directions

In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.

The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).

“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.

Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.

“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.

Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.

“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.

Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.

“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”

An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.

“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.

For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.

Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.

Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.

[email protected]

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Thinkstock

Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).

The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.

“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.

A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.

The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.

DOAC-related updates

VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.

Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).

Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.

Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
 

Additional updates

CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”

“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.

Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.

Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.

Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.

A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
 

Reaffirmed recommendations

Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.

The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
 

Perspective and future directions

In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.

The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).

“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.

Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.

“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.

Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.

“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.

Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.

“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”

An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.

“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.

For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.

Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.

Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.

[email protected]

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Fresher blood products are not necessarily better for patients with beta thalassemia, according to a pair of experts.

Red blood cell units stored less than 2 weeks are ideal, but older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching should take priority over unit age, advised Ashutosh Lal, MD, and Elliott Vichinsky, MD, both of UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.). They discussed these and other recommendations for transfusing patients with thalassemia during a webinar hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indications for transfusion

Dr. Lal said patients with beta thalassemia major should be transfused if their hemoglobin is less than 7 g/dL on two occasions 2 weeks apart at baseline, or if their hemoglobin is greater than 7 g/dL and they have symptoms of anemia.

Patients with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia major should be transfused only if they have symptoms of anemia.

“The rationale is that, in beta thalassemia major, it is well established that, once the hemoglobin levels fall below 7 g/dL in young children, there is going to be massive bone marrow expansion, and there will be severe symptoms from anemia,” Dr. Lal said. “But the relationship of hemoglobin with symptoms in E beta thalassemia is less precise.”

The symptoms that should prompt transfusion include slowed growth, skeletal facial changes, splenomegaly, symptomatic or moderate to severe extramedullary hematopoiesis, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary hypertension, osteoporotic fracture, and impaired quality of life in adults.

Dr. Lal said physicians should consider a 6-month trial of transfusions if the indication is unclear. He also noted that red cell antigen genotyping should be performed in all patients who may need transfusions.

Blood products

Dr. Lal said beta thalassemia patients should receive packed red blood cells that are leukoreduced prior to storage. The storage solution can be citrate-phosphate-dextrose solution with adenine (hematocrit 75%) or additive solution (hematocrit 60%).

“It’s important to note that the hematocrit of the two is quite different, and that needs to be inculcated into the decisions on how much volume to transfuse to younger children,” Dr. Lal said.

He noted that units should not be irradiated, as this damages the red cell membrane. And patients with severe allergic reactions should receive washed red blood cells because washing units removes residual donor plasma proteins.

Finally, units should be less than 2 weeks old if possible. Dr. Lal said using fresh units increases the survival of red blood cells post transfusion. However, he and Dr. Vichinsky both stressed that older units are acceptable, and phenotype matching is more important than the age of the unit.

Phenotype matching

Beta thalassemia patients who do not have preexisting alloantibodies or have transient autoantibodies should be matched to Rh and Kell, according to Dr. Lal.

Patients with preexisting alloantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and the specific alloantibody. Patients with persistent autoantibodies should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, S, and any alloantibody.

Patients who start transfusions after 5 years of age should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S. Pregnant patients should be matched to Rh, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, and S, and units should be cytomegalovirus negative.

How to transfuse

Dr. Lal said the pretransfusion hemoglobin target is 10 g/dL, with a range of 9.5-10.5 g/dL in beta thalassemia major and a range of 9.0-10.5 g/dL for E beta thalassemia. A target of 10 g/dL is adequate for most individuals, Dr. Lal said, but he recommends individualization of hemoglobin target for patients with E beta thalassemia.

In general, patients should be transfused every 3 weeks, although 4 weeks is acceptable in younger children and those with hemoglobin E beta thalassemia.

As for the volume of a transfusion, children should receive 4 mL per kg of body weight, per gram increase in hemoglobin desired. Partial units can be used to avoid undertransfusion.

For adults, in general, those with pretransfusion hemoglobin less than 10 g/dL should receive three units, and those with pretransfusion hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or greater should receive two units.

The hemoglobin threshold should be adjusted based on fatigue or bone pain, Dr. Lal said. He also noted that patients with intact spleens have higher transfusion needs.

The rate of transfusion should be 5 mL/kg/hour in children and 200-300 mL/hour in adults, based on tolerance. Patients with impaired cardiac function should receive a reduced blood volume at a reduced rate.

Non–transfusion dependent thalassemia

Dr. Vichinsky discussed recommendations for non–transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), noting that these patients may need transient transfusions to prevent morbidity.

Hemoglobin should not be the sole determinant of transfusion need in NTDT patients, he said. Their well-being – activity level, growth, and skeletal changes – is more important than hemoglobin levels. However, patients with hemoglobin levels less than 7 g/dL often have severe morbidity, and those with levels of 10 g/dL or greater are usually protected from severe morbidity.

Indications for transfusion in NTDT patients include:
 

• Growth failure.
• Hematopoietic tumors.
• Pulmonary hypertension.
• Silent brain infarcts.
• Skin ulcers.
• Severe bone pain.
• Poor quality of life.
• Frequent hemolytic crises.
• Marked and enlarging spleen.
• Failure of secondary sex development.
• Cosmetic and facial changes.
• Pregnancy.

“There is a risk to transfusing this population,” Dr. Vichinsky said. “They’re older, and when you transfuse them, they can get iron overloaded.”

He added that splenectomized NTDT patients have a high risk of alloimmunization, and the transfusion duration should be serially reevaluated in NTDT patients.

Alpha thalassemia major

For alpha thalassemia major, Dr. Vichinsky discussed the importance of prevention, screening, and fetal therapy. He said couples with a fetus at risk of alpha thalassemia major should be identified early and offered, in addition to termination, the option of early fetal transfusion.

Dr. Vichinsky recommended prenatal testing and monitoring of at-risk pregnancies with ultrasound. If the fetus requires a transfusion, monitoring hemoglobin Barts and hemoglobin A is necessary.

A fetus that requires a transfusion should receive packed red blood cells that are cytomegalovirus negative, are less than 7 days old, have been irradiated, have a hemoglobin mass greater than 75%, and have been optimally cross matched with the mother first.

“These babies appear, with serial transfusions, to survive and have a relatively normal neonatal period,” Dr. Vichinsky said.

He added, however, that postnatal management of alpha thalassemia major involves an aggressive transfusion protocol. These patients should be transfused to a higher hemoglobin level than patients with beta thalassemia – roughly 12 g/dL versus 10 g/dL.

These and Dr. Lal’s recommendations are based on information in the Standards of Care Guidelines for Thalassemia – Oakland 2011, the Thalassemia International Federation Guidelines – 2014, the Thalassemia Management Checklists: United States – 2018, the Thalassemia Western Consortium Consensus: US – 2019, and the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines – 2019.

Dr. Lal and Dr. Vichinsky did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Two new guidelines on the treatment and prevention of migraines in children and adolescents have been released by the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

This update to the previous guidelines released by the American Academy of Neurology in 2004 reflects the expansion in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches during the last 15 years, Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There has also been an increase in the number of randomized controlled studies, which have allowed for a more robust statement on acute and preventive treatments to be made,” said Dr. Hershey, who is also a senior author for both guidelines.

The two reports focused on separate issues: One guideline outlined the options for treatment of acute migraine, and the second guideline summarized the available studies on the effectiveness of preventive medications for migraine in children and adolescents.

The guidelines recommend a physical examination and history to establish a specific headache diagnosis and afford a treatment that provides fast and complete pain relief. Treatment should be initiated as soon as a patient realizes an attack is occurring. Patients with signs of secondary headache should be evaluated by a neurologist or a headache specialist.

Studies support the use of ibuprofen and acetaminophen for pain relief in cases of acute migraine, but only some triptans (such as almotriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan/naproxen, and zolmitriptan nasal spray) are approved for use in adolescents. Specifically, sumatriptan/naproxen was shown to be effective when compared with placebo in studies with adolescents, whose headache symptoms resolved within 2 hours.

It may be necessary to try more than one triptan, the guidelines noted, because patients respond differently to medications. A failure to respond to one triptan does not necessarily mean that treatment with another triptan will be unsuccessful.

The guidelines also focused on patient and family education to improve medication safety and adherence. Lifestyle modification, avoidance of migraine triggers, creating good sleep habits, and staying hydrated can help reduce migraines. While no medications improved associated symptoms of migraines such as nausea or vomiting, triptans did show a benefit in reducing phonophobia and photophobia.

Evidence for pharmacologic prevention of migraines in children and adolescents is limited, according to the guidelines. In the 15 studies included in a literature review, there was not sufficient evidence to show preventive treatments, such as divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, and flunarizine, were more effective than placebo at reducing the frequency of headaches. There was some evidence to show propranolol in children and topiramate and cinnarizine in children and adolescents can reduce headache frequency. Children and adolescents who received cognitive-behavioral therapy together with amitriptyline were more likely to have reduced frequency of headaches than were those who received amitriptyline with patient education.

“The consensus conclusion was that a multidisciplinary approach that combines acute treatments, preventive treatments, and healthy habits is likely to have the best outcomes,” said Dr. Hershey.

Dr. Hershey acknowledged the many gaps between what is clinically observed and what the studies in the guidelines demonstrated.

“One of the biggest questions is how to minimize the expectation response in the controlled studies,” he said. “Additionally, we are moving toward a better recognition of the mechanism by which the various treatments work in a genetic-based disease that is polygenic in nature” with up to 38 different gene polymorphisms identified to date.

The guidelines also do not address newer treatments, such as calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, CGRP antagonists, serotonin antagonists, and devices because there are as yet no studies of their effectiveness in children and adolescents.

“They have been studied in adults, so will be prone to the expectation response; but given the large number of diverse therapies, one can hope that many of the gaps can be filled,” said Dr. Hershey.

The American Academy of Neurology provided funding for development of the guidelines and reimbursed authors who served as subcommittee members for travel expenses and in-person meetings. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, grants, honorariums, consultancies, and publishing royalties for pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

SOURCES: Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008095. Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008105.

Two new guidelines on the treatment and prevention of migraines in children and adolescents have been released by the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

This update to the previous guidelines released by the American Academy of Neurology in 2004 reflects the expansion in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches during the last 15 years, Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There has also been an increase in the number of randomized controlled studies, which have allowed for a more robust statement on acute and preventive treatments to be made,” said Dr. Hershey, who is also a senior author for both guidelines.

The two reports focused on separate issues: One guideline outlined the options for treatment of acute migraine, and the second guideline summarized the available studies on the effectiveness of preventive medications for migraine in children and adolescents.

The guidelines recommend a physical examination and history to establish a specific headache diagnosis and afford a treatment that provides fast and complete pain relief. Treatment should be initiated as soon as a patient realizes an attack is occurring. Patients with signs of secondary headache should be evaluated by a neurologist or a headache specialist.

Studies support the use of ibuprofen and acetaminophen for pain relief in cases of acute migraine, but only some triptans (such as almotriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan/naproxen, and zolmitriptan nasal spray) are approved for use in adolescents. Specifically, sumatriptan/naproxen was shown to be effective when compared with placebo in studies with adolescents, whose headache symptoms resolved within 2 hours.

It may be necessary to try more than one triptan, the guidelines noted, because patients respond differently to medications. A failure to respond to one triptan does not necessarily mean that treatment with another triptan will be unsuccessful.

The guidelines also focused on patient and family education to improve medication safety and adherence. Lifestyle modification, avoidance of migraine triggers, creating good sleep habits, and staying hydrated can help reduce migraines. While no medications improved associated symptoms of migraines such as nausea or vomiting, triptans did show a benefit in reducing phonophobia and photophobia.

Evidence for pharmacologic prevention of migraines in children and adolescents is limited, according to the guidelines. In the 15 studies included in a literature review, there was not sufficient evidence to show preventive treatments, such as divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, and flunarizine, were more effective than placebo at reducing the frequency of headaches. There was some evidence to show propranolol in children and topiramate and cinnarizine in children and adolescents can reduce headache frequency. Children and adolescents who received cognitive-behavioral therapy together with amitriptyline were more likely to have reduced frequency of headaches than were those who received amitriptyline with patient education.

“The consensus conclusion was that a multidisciplinary approach that combines acute treatments, preventive treatments, and healthy habits is likely to have the best outcomes,” said Dr. Hershey.

Dr. Hershey acknowledged the many gaps between what is clinically observed and what the studies in the guidelines demonstrated.

“One of the biggest questions is how to minimize the expectation response in the controlled studies,” he said. “Additionally, we are moving toward a better recognition of the mechanism by which the various treatments work in a genetic-based disease that is polygenic in nature” with up to 38 different gene polymorphisms identified to date.

The guidelines also do not address newer treatments, such as calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, CGRP antagonists, serotonin antagonists, and devices because there are as yet no studies of their effectiveness in children and adolescents.

“They have been studied in adults, so will be prone to the expectation response; but given the large number of diverse therapies, one can hope that many of the gaps can be filled,” said Dr. Hershey.

The American Academy of Neurology provided funding for development of the guidelines and reimbursed authors who served as subcommittee members for travel expenses and in-person meetings. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, grants, honorariums, consultancies, and publishing royalties for pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

SOURCES: Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008095. Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008105.

Two new guidelines on the treatment and prevention of migraines in children and adolescents have been released by the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.

This update to the previous guidelines released by the American Academy of Neurology in 2004 reflects the expansion in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches during the last 15 years, Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There has also been an increase in the number of randomized controlled studies, which have allowed for a more robust statement on acute and preventive treatments to be made,” said Dr. Hershey, who is also a senior author for both guidelines.

The two reports focused on separate issues: One guideline outlined the options for treatment of acute migraine, and the second guideline summarized the available studies on the effectiveness of preventive medications for migraine in children and adolescents.

The guidelines recommend a physical examination and history to establish a specific headache diagnosis and afford a treatment that provides fast and complete pain relief. Treatment should be initiated as soon as a patient realizes an attack is occurring. Patients with signs of secondary headache should be evaluated by a neurologist or a headache specialist.

Studies support the use of ibuprofen and acetaminophen for pain relief in cases of acute migraine, but only some triptans (such as almotriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan/naproxen, and zolmitriptan nasal spray) are approved for use in adolescents. Specifically, sumatriptan/naproxen was shown to be effective when compared with placebo in studies with adolescents, whose headache symptoms resolved within 2 hours.

It may be necessary to try more than one triptan, the guidelines noted, because patients respond differently to medications. A failure to respond to one triptan does not necessarily mean that treatment with another triptan will be unsuccessful.

The guidelines also focused on patient and family education to improve medication safety and adherence. Lifestyle modification, avoidance of migraine triggers, creating good sleep habits, and staying hydrated can help reduce migraines. While no medications improved associated symptoms of migraines such as nausea or vomiting, triptans did show a benefit in reducing phonophobia and photophobia.

Evidence for pharmacologic prevention of migraines in children and adolescents is limited, according to the guidelines. In the 15 studies included in a literature review, there was not sufficient evidence to show preventive treatments, such as divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, and flunarizine, were more effective than placebo at reducing the frequency of headaches. There was some evidence to show propranolol in children and topiramate and cinnarizine in children and adolescents can reduce headache frequency. Children and adolescents who received cognitive-behavioral therapy together with amitriptyline were more likely to have reduced frequency of headaches than were those who received amitriptyline with patient education.

“The consensus conclusion was that a multidisciplinary approach that combines acute treatments, preventive treatments, and healthy habits is likely to have the best outcomes,” said Dr. Hershey.

Dr. Hershey acknowledged the many gaps between what is clinically observed and what the studies in the guidelines demonstrated.

“One of the biggest questions is how to minimize the expectation response in the controlled studies,” he said. “Additionally, we are moving toward a better recognition of the mechanism by which the various treatments work in a genetic-based disease that is polygenic in nature” with up to 38 different gene polymorphisms identified to date.

The guidelines also do not address newer treatments, such as calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, CGRP antagonists, serotonin antagonists, and devices because there are as yet no studies of their effectiveness in children and adolescents.

“They have been studied in adults, so will be prone to the expectation response; but given the large number of diverse therapies, one can hope that many of the gaps can be filled,” said Dr. Hershey.

The American Academy of Neurology provided funding for development of the guidelines and reimbursed authors who served as subcommittee members for travel expenses and in-person meetings. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speakers bureau positions, research support, grants, honorariums, consultancies, and publishing royalties for pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

SOURCES: Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008095. Oskoui M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008105.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends for the first time that primary care clinicians screen adults aged 18 years and older for illicit drug use, according to a draft recommendation statement now available for public comment.

andrewsafonov/Thinkstock

The statement defines illicit drug use as “use of illegal drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription psychoactive medications (i.e., use for reasons, for duration, in amounts, or with frequency other than prescribed or use by persons other than the prescribed individual).”

The guidelines do not apply to individuals younger than 18 years, for whom the USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening, or to adults currently diagnosed or in treatment for a drug use disorder.

In the draft recommendation statement, available online, the USPSTF noted that several screening tools are available for use in primary care practices, including the BSTAD (Brief Screener for Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs) that consists of six questions. The task force noted that they have found “adequate evidence” that these screening tools can detect illicit drug use. In addition, they wrote that no studies offer evidence of benefits versus harms of these screening tools, and evidence of harms associated with screening are limited.

Screening intervals can be simplified by screening young adults whenever they seek medical services and when clinicians suspect illicit drug use, the USPSTF said.

When the draft recommendation is finalized, it will replace the 2008 recommendation, which found insufficient evidence for screening in adults, as well as in adolescents. New evidence since 2008 supports the value of screening for adults aged 18 years and older, including pregnant and postpartum women.

The draft recommendations are based on the results of two systematic evidence reviews that assessed the accuracy and harms of routine illicit drug use screening. The USPSTF’s review included 12 studies on the accuracy of 15 screening tools. Overall, the sensitivity of direct screening tools to identify “unhealthy use of ‘any drug’ (including illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs) in the past month or year” ranged from 0.71 to 0.94, and the specificity ranged from 0.87 to 0.97.

Based on the current evidence, the USPSTF assigned drug screening for adults a grade B recommendation, defined as “high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.”

For treatment, the Task Force found evidence to support strategies including pharmacotherapy with naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone, as well as for psychosocial interventions.

The USPSTF acknowledged that many factors may affect a clinicians’ decision of whether to implement the drug screening recommendation. “In many communities, affordable, accessible, and timely services for diagnostic assessment and treatment for patients with positive screening results are in limited supply or unaffordable. Providers should be aware of any state requirements for mandatory screening or reporting of screening results to medicolegal authorities and understand the positive and negative implications of reporting,” they wrote.

The draft recommendations also identified several research gaps including the effectiveness of screening for illicit drug use in adolescents, the optimal screening interval for all patients, the accuracy of screening tools for detecting opioids, the accuracy of screening within the same population, the benefits of naloxone as rescue therapy, and nonmedical use of other prescription drugs, as well as ways to improve access to care for those diagnosed with drug use disorders.

The draft recommendation is available for public comment until Sept. 9, 2019, at 8 p.m. EST.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a recommendation statement reaffirming its 2004 guideline, which recommended against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults, according to task force member Douglas K. Owens, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System and associates.

Pancreatic cancer is uncommon, with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100,000 person-years; however, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death because mortality is high. The mortality rate is 11.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years, and an estimated 45,750 people will die from the disease in 2019.

In 2004, the USPSTF issued a D recommendation for pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults without a family history of pancreatic cancer or a genetic disorder that increases the risk of cancer. For the 2019 update, the task force conducted a systematic review of 13 studies that assessed the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treating screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer.

According to the USPSTF, the studies included in the review found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves morbidity or mortality, found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small, and found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate.

Because no new evidence was found supporting pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults, “the USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms,” the task force members noted.

The task force authors reported no disclosures related to the recommendation statement.

SOURCE: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10232.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a recommendation statement reaffirming its 2004 guideline, which recommended against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults, according to task force member Douglas K. Owens, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System and associates.

Pancreatic cancer is uncommon, with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100,000 person-years; however, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death because mortality is high. The mortality rate is 11.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years, and an estimated 45,750 people will die from the disease in 2019.

In 2004, the USPSTF issued a D recommendation for pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults without a family history of pancreatic cancer or a genetic disorder that increases the risk of cancer. For the 2019 update, the task force conducted a systematic review of 13 studies that assessed the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treating screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer.

According to the USPSTF, the studies included in the review found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves morbidity or mortality, found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small, and found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate.

Because no new evidence was found supporting pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults, “the USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms,” the task force members noted.

The task force authors reported no disclosures related to the recommendation statement.

SOURCE: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10232.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued a recommendation statement reaffirming its 2004 guideline, which recommended against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults, according to task force member Douglas K. Owens, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System and associates.

Pancreatic cancer is uncommon, with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100,000 person-years; however, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death because mortality is high. The mortality rate is 11.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years, and an estimated 45,750 people will die from the disease in 2019.

In 2004, the USPSTF issued a D recommendation for pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults without a family history of pancreatic cancer or a genetic disorder that increases the risk of cancer. For the 2019 update, the task force conducted a systematic review of 13 studies that assessed the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treating screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer.

According to the USPSTF, the studies included in the review found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves morbidity or mortality, found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small, and found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate.

Because no new evidence was found supporting pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic adults, “the USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms,” the task force members noted.

The task force authors reported no disclosures related to the recommendation statement.

SOURCE: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10232.

A new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in children has been released by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG).

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding optimal medical treatment strategies for achieving clinical remission based on a multi-item assessment of disease activity in pediatric patients with luminal CD. The guideline does not address surgical management, diagnosis, psychosocial therapies, preventative health considerations, or growth monitoring.

“The implications of inadequately treated CD are of particular importance in children because of the potentially serious and irreversible consequences,” wrote David R. Mack, MD, of the University of Ottawa and associates. Dr. Mack is the lead author of the pediatric practice guideline copublished in Gastroenterology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The consensus group reached its recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature for studies related to the medical treatment of pediatric CD. The majority of studies were randomized trials conducted in adults with CD.

“Evidence of efficacy of specific treatments in achieving mucosal healing is limited; therefore, “complete” or “deep” remission (clinical remission plus mucosal healing) was not the chosen primary outcome,” the guideline authors wrote.

The panel recommended that corticosteroids can be used as induction therapy in children with moderate to severe disease. Moreover, budesonide may be an appropriate alternative for induction therapy in patients with mild to moderate CD.

In contrast, the group recommended against the use of corticosteroids as maintenance therapy, largely because of adverse events reported with long-term use.

At diagnosis or initial stages of severe disease, as well as in patients who have failed with immunosuppressant and corticosteroid induction strategies, enteral nutrition should be used exclusively for induction therapy. In addition, anti–tumor necrosis factor biologics are an appropriate option for induction and maintenance therapy in these patients, according to the guideline.

“The group recommended against the use of oral 5-aminosalicylate for induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate disease, and recommended against thiopurines for induction therapy,” they wrote.

With respect to cannabis-based products, the panel made a strong recommendation against the use of these agents in all pediatric patients.

In terms of assessment, the team recommended that patients in clinical remission receiving methotrexate or a thiopurine agent as maintenance therapy should be evaluated for mucosal healing within 1 year of therapy initiation.

No consensus was reached on the adjuvant use of immunosuppressants during initiation therapy with a biologic drug, but the consensus panel recommended against the use of thiopurine combinations in male patients. Furthermore, no consensus was reached on the role of vedolizumab or antibiotics for induction or maintenance therapy, methotrexate for induction therapy, and the function of aminosalicylates in patients with mild CD.

The panel highlighted the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making.

“It is hoped that the available information will enhance the discussion between the clinician and the patient and enable the patient to make an evidence-based informed decision.”

The expert consensus was made up of 15 voting members that consisted of pediatric gastroenterologists throughout the United States and Canada, with expertise in several domains, including clinical epidemiology, nutrition, health services research, and patient engagement.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was denoted as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at an in-person meeting conducted in Toronto in October 2017.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie and Takeda, as well as Janssen, Nestle Health Sciences, Shire, and several others.

SOURCE: Mack DR et al. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.022.

A new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in children has been released by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG).

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding optimal medical treatment strategies for achieving clinical remission based on a multi-item assessment of disease activity in pediatric patients with luminal CD. The guideline does not address surgical management, diagnosis, psychosocial therapies, preventative health considerations, or growth monitoring.

“The implications of inadequately treated CD are of particular importance in children because of the potentially serious and irreversible consequences,” wrote David R. Mack, MD, of the University of Ottawa and associates. Dr. Mack is the lead author of the pediatric practice guideline copublished in Gastroenterology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The consensus group reached its recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature for studies related to the medical treatment of pediatric CD. The majority of studies were randomized trials conducted in adults with CD.

“Evidence of efficacy of specific treatments in achieving mucosal healing is limited; therefore, “complete” or “deep” remission (clinical remission plus mucosal healing) was not the chosen primary outcome,” the guideline authors wrote.

The panel recommended that corticosteroids can be used as induction therapy in children with moderate to severe disease. Moreover, budesonide may be an appropriate alternative for induction therapy in patients with mild to moderate CD.

In contrast, the group recommended against the use of corticosteroids as maintenance therapy, largely because of adverse events reported with long-term use.

At diagnosis or initial stages of severe disease, as well as in patients who have failed with immunosuppressant and corticosteroid induction strategies, enteral nutrition should be used exclusively for induction therapy. In addition, anti–tumor necrosis factor biologics are an appropriate option for induction and maintenance therapy in these patients, according to the guideline.

“The group recommended against the use of oral 5-aminosalicylate for induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate disease, and recommended against thiopurines for induction therapy,” they wrote.

With respect to cannabis-based products, the panel made a strong recommendation against the use of these agents in all pediatric patients.

In terms of assessment, the team recommended that patients in clinical remission receiving methotrexate or a thiopurine agent as maintenance therapy should be evaluated for mucosal healing within 1 year of therapy initiation.

No consensus was reached on the adjuvant use of immunosuppressants during initiation therapy with a biologic drug, but the consensus panel recommended against the use of thiopurine combinations in male patients. Furthermore, no consensus was reached on the role of vedolizumab or antibiotics for induction or maintenance therapy, methotrexate for induction therapy, and the function of aminosalicylates in patients with mild CD.

The panel highlighted the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making.

“It is hoped that the available information will enhance the discussion between the clinician and the patient and enable the patient to make an evidence-based informed decision.”

The expert consensus was made up of 15 voting members that consisted of pediatric gastroenterologists throughout the United States and Canada, with expertise in several domains, including clinical epidemiology, nutrition, health services research, and patient engagement.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was denoted as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at an in-person meeting conducted in Toronto in October 2017.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie and Takeda, as well as Janssen, Nestle Health Sciences, Shire, and several others.

SOURCE: Mack DR et al. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.022.

A new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in children has been released by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG).

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding optimal medical treatment strategies for achieving clinical remission based on a multi-item assessment of disease activity in pediatric patients with luminal CD. The guideline does not address surgical management, diagnosis, psychosocial therapies, preventative health considerations, or growth monitoring.

“The implications of inadequately treated CD are of particular importance in children because of the potentially serious and irreversible consequences,” wrote David R. Mack, MD, of the University of Ottawa and associates. Dr. Mack is the lead author of the pediatric practice guideline copublished in Gastroenterology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The consensus group reached its recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature for studies related to the medical treatment of pediatric CD. The majority of studies were randomized trials conducted in adults with CD.

“Evidence of efficacy of specific treatments in achieving mucosal healing is limited; therefore, “complete” or “deep” remission (clinical remission plus mucosal healing) was not the chosen primary outcome,” the guideline authors wrote.

The panel recommended that corticosteroids can be used as induction therapy in children with moderate to severe disease. Moreover, budesonide may be an appropriate alternative for induction therapy in patients with mild to moderate CD.

In contrast, the group recommended against the use of corticosteroids as maintenance therapy, largely because of adverse events reported with long-term use.

At diagnosis or initial stages of severe disease, as well as in patients who have failed with immunosuppressant and corticosteroid induction strategies, enteral nutrition should be used exclusively for induction therapy. In addition, anti–tumor necrosis factor biologics are an appropriate option for induction and maintenance therapy in these patients, according to the guideline.

“The group recommended against the use of oral 5-aminosalicylate for induction or maintenance therapy in patients with moderate disease, and recommended against thiopurines for induction therapy,” they wrote.

With respect to cannabis-based products, the panel made a strong recommendation against the use of these agents in all pediatric patients.

In terms of assessment, the team recommended that patients in clinical remission receiving methotrexate or a thiopurine agent as maintenance therapy should be evaluated for mucosal healing within 1 year of therapy initiation.

No consensus was reached on the adjuvant use of immunosuppressants during initiation therapy with a biologic drug, but the consensus panel recommended against the use of thiopurine combinations in male patients. Furthermore, no consensus was reached on the role of vedolizumab or antibiotics for induction or maintenance therapy, methotrexate for induction therapy, and the function of aminosalicylates in patients with mild CD.

The panel highlighted the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making.

“It is hoped that the available information will enhance the discussion between the clinician and the patient and enable the patient to make an evidence-based informed decision.”

The expert consensus was made up of 15 voting members that consisted of pediatric gastroenterologists throughout the United States and Canada, with expertise in several domains, including clinical epidemiology, nutrition, health services research, and patient engagement.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was denoted as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at an in-person meeting conducted in Toronto in October 2017.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie and Takeda, as well as Janssen, Nestle Health Sciences, Shire, and several others.

SOURCE: Mack DR et al. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.022.